It's not "webkit proprietary code". It's currently only supported in Webkit because of where and why it was created, and it being part of CSS3, which is still very new and a working draft. I'm not even sure Chrome yet supports it which is Webkit-based. It's easy to code while using low resources so I expect this one to pass and be widely adopted. You can't expect everyone to adopt something out of the gate. I gate Adobe 2 years to get Flash straightened out. All I heard were promises. It's now been almost 3.5 years and it's still not available for a single Android phone.

no they didn't. Apple criticized the current and all prior versions of Flash. Adobe replied with 'but the next version' which hasn't released yet. And thus, since it hasn't released, it's very dang hard, for Adobe to substantiate their claims that it works great.

the fact is that Adobe has never hidden that they are Windows focused. They do that version first then slap on a few lines of code to make it work (more or less) on Apple. Not just Flash but everything. Despite the fact that as much as half their sales go to Mac users they have never optimized their software for the Mac OS. And seem to have no intention to.

But instead of dealing with that issue, they are trying to play emotional games to make themselves look like good guys, etc

wonderful. Soooo, this needs to be developed more than once, to support all browsers????

That is how the web development has always been since the days of Netscape vs. Explorer. Not likely to change anytime soon. If you do use Flash or you do use HTML5 you should budget some development time for fall back content. Only the most basic html pages can be expected to render well in ALL browsers.

It's not "webkit proprietary code". It's currently only supported in Webkit because of where and why it was created, and it being part of CSS3, which is still very new and a working draft. I'm not even sure Chrome yet supports it which is Webkit-based. It's easy to code while using low resources so I expect this one to pass and be widely adopted. You can't expect everyone to adopt something out of the gate. I gate Adobe 2 years to get Flash straightened out. All I heard were promises. It's now been almost 3.5 years and it's still not available for a single Android phone.

What ever you do to try to block ads, there will be a workaround developed by the people who have a different agenda. Example: Gordon.js can run Flash ads even on an iPhone and is not detected by Click to Flash, not that many are using that method presently.

Once advertising income is being lost due to blocking, they will just come up with another even more insidious method of delivering them. Kind of makes you wonder how prevalent Flash blocking really is, since the advertisers don't seem to be showing any signs of moving away from Flash to HTML5.

That is how the web development has always been since the days of Netscape vs. Explorer. Not likely to change anytime soon. If you do use Flash or you do use HTML5 you should budget some development time for fall back content. Only the most basic html pages can be expected to render well in ALL browsers.

tell me something I don't know.

As I said, flash content for enabled browsers, and then swfObject alt content and redirect for mobile.

but you'd need to support all of them. It seems like things have gotten worse here as a developer.

So you want to something cool. I guess the only option at this point, develop the flash for desktop, and redirect to a mobile dumbed down version for now.

i personally don't think that's the way to go. the days of frivolous eye-candy are over. i know there are some things you can do in flash that aren't yet possible (at least easily) to do in other ways. if you really look at usability though, i think there's always an easier, more efficient way to deliver information. how many times have you found the info you were really looking for on the google result page, without ever visiting the originating site?

restaurants are a good example. they often do their entire sites in flash, with mind numbing animated floating text and useless pan & scans. when you're just looking for their hours, address, and maybe want to have a look at their menus, why bother delivering goo to potential customers and block mobile users in the process? looks to me like somebody oversold them... we need to educate our clients and convince them that usability always trumps visual complexity. if they buy an iphone, they'll figure that out themselves rather quickly.

it would definitely work on more mobile browsers than flash, if that's where you getting at...

Devices that support CSS3 3D Transforms: ~90,000,000
Devices that support Flash 10.1: zero, zip, nada, none, nothing, nil, naught, nought; informal zilch, nix, zip, nada, diddly-squat, zilch
Devices that will support Flash 10.1: The number of Nexus One and Droid Incredibles sold to date? How many is that?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

i personally don't think that's the way to go. the days of frivolous eye-candy are over. i know there are some things you can do in flash that aren't yet possible (at least easily) to do in other ways. if you really look at usability though, i think there's always an easier, more efficient way to deliver information. how many times have you found the info you were really looking for on the google result page, without ever visiting the originating site?

restaurants are a good example. they often do their entire sites in flash, with mind numbing animated floating text and useless pan & scans. when you're just looking for their hours, address, and maybe want to have a look at their menus, why bother delivering goo to potential customers and block mobile users in the process? looks to me like somebody oversold them... we need to educate our clients and convince them that usability always trumps visual complexity. if they buy an iphone, they'll figure that out themselves rather quickly.

It's not "webkit proprietary code". It's currently only supported in Webkit because of where and why it was created, and it being part of CSS3, which is still very new and a working draft. I'm not even sure Chrome yet supports it which is Webkit-based. It's easy to code while using low resources so I expect this one to pass and be widely adopted. You can't expect everyone to adopt something out of the gate. I gate Adobe 2 years to get Flash straightened out. All I heard were promises. It's now been almost 3.5 years and it's still not available for a single Android phone.

Do you have a timeline as to when developers can use this to target all browsers at once? When will this actually "kill flash" on the desktop?

1) This is the first time CSS3 has been mentioned.

2) The timeline is up to them but you'll likely still claim that because Apple created it that it's proprietary.

3) No one is talking about killing Flash on the desktop or otherwise. Adobe is the only one killing Flash in any way, shape or form. Everyone else is talking about better, more efficent ways to push data across the web. You're the one with the smarmy remarks trying to make it into some personal war that can only be seen in black or white.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I'm still waiting for an example of your HTML5 animation that failed on an iPhone but worked in some browsers. Is THAT hard to understand?

I wrote an HTML5 test page and I was immediately confronted with one very annoying problem with the canvas tag on iPhone. In my test, once I pinched zoomed to the point where my canvas filled the iPhone screen. I could not zoom out as the canvas tag itself for some reason is unresponsive to the pinch.

Not really, I still have no idea what you are ranting about exactly. Maybe you should take some time and try to express yourself clearly. If you have a good point, people might agree with you. If not, they will rip it to shreds.

My last thought on this mess...Adobe, just get off your butts and make a great mobile Flash product that EVERYONE wants. Not just your Flash Camp groupies. Make it so good, and so wonderful that Apple just can't NOT support it. End of story. All done. Until that time, just keep quiet and work so hard that you will be too tired to spread BS. Work so hard that your Flash Camp Graduates will actually have something to be proud of. Work so hard that the employees that blog for you for a living actually have the ability to point to what a great mobile Flash product looks like and works like in the real world. Work so hard that you actually have shipping versions that the public falls in love with. That people say 'Hey, I don't want the internet unless it's got this here Flashy thing running on it'.

Make it so great that everyone is blown away with the quality of the product. Make it so great that Steve Jobs even says, 'Wow. that's working well. and with no impact on battery life'.

Make it so great that no other technology can compete. Make it so great that it is obvious why, after 3 plus years of iPhone like devices there isn't a Flash solution on all the platforms. Make it so wonderful that there just is no reason to do anything with a real language, or low level tools.

The fallacy in your comment is that Jobs and Apple didn't create the website. Disney did. Jobs sold them Pixar years back, got some stock and a place on the Board. but he is not the end all and be all decision maker. He's a consultant at best.

Now if Apple's website used Flash you might be onto something. But it doesn't. It uses Gianduia, a javascript based language for web apps which they started about a year ago and have already rolled out on their site. Go place a Genius Bar appointment and you'll see it in action.

Once they get the bugs worked out, you'll probably see it turning up on other sites, including perhaps even Disney. But as is Apple's style, they don't release things just to release them, they want to feel like it is as close to perfect as they can get without real world feedback.

2) The timeline is up to them but you'll likely still claim that because Apple created it that it's proprietary.

3) No one is talking about killing Flash on the desktop or otherwise. Adobe is the only one killing Flash in any way, shape or form. Everyone else is talking about better, more efficent ways to push data across the web. You're the one with the smarmy remarks trying to make it into some personal war that can only be seen in black or white.

slippery.

Q, is html5 a standard yet? no

is CSS3 a standard yet? no

I have heard ad nausem about how flash is going to get replaced. on the desktop. Because, as you guys have shrieked 400 billion times, there is no flash to replace on mobile as of yet...

I haven't made it personal at all. Apparently, I'm the adobe shill for pointing out the truth here.

You just don't see it. You're pushing a technology as a flash killer that isn't even a standard yet, one that isn't supported thoughout the desktop browser even.

nd then, in the next breath, you complain that flash player isn't out of beta. It's a stupid flawed arguement.

I'd rather see some comparisons as to what htnl5 -and- CSS3 (happy now?) can do.

Anyway, I work to do, I've wasted far too much time going circles here to hear how smart you are.

I guess you have a better crystal ball to see where things will be in a year.

Not everyone is an Objective C programmer, nor does everyone want to be. And people shouldn't be forced into learning one way when other ways are available. Not everyone has the same education and skillset.

If someone makes a tool that makes your job simpler, you use it. In this case, it means a simplified approach to programming that makes development accessible to ordinary people. If you try to argue against accessibility, you'll lose.

Now, it's another argument entirely if they want to program in Flash and the Flash engine is inherently buggy and slow. That's Adobe's problem. But if you want to use NimbleKit or PhoneKit, tools that are allowable under the new Terms of Use, you shouldn't be hassled by Objective C purists.

No one said that Obj-C was your only choice. It IS, however, clear that programming in a supported language, using approved tools is much more likely to get you a robust, supported app - which is what Apple wants to achieve. The emulated, runtime crapware just isn't any good - in Apple's experience and the experience of most developers.

It's one thing on a desktop with 4 GB of RAM and a multi-GHz processor. It's quite another on a resource-limited mobile device.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

he might run a 'web shop' that actually cares about the quality and portability of the information. Of course he may not be able to charge the ridiculous fees for Flash 'animations' that have so endeared people to the magic that is 'Flash development'.

Elitist? That if you work in technology you might want to learn, like, programming? And just maybe a variety of languages? So learning things and being educated and having the ability to work at a lower level on a system is elitist?

Weird. I'd say it;'s the opposite. It supports those who are most able to compete. It's only elitist if you consider competition elitist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

No one said that Obj-C was your only choice. It IS, however, clear that programming in a supported language, using approved tools is much more likely to get you a robust, supported app - which is what Apple wants to achieve. The emulated, runtime crapware just isn't any good - in Apple's experience and the experience of most developers.

It's one thing on a desktop with 4 GB of RAM and a multi-GHz processor. It's quite another on a resource-limited mobile device.

You just don't see it. You're pushing a technology as a flash killer that isn't even a standard yet, one that isn't supported thoughout the desktop browser even.

Again, Adobe is the only one killing Flash because they thought nothing could topple their monopoly position.

Quote:

nd then, in the next breath, you complain that flash player isn't out of beta. It's a stupid flawed arguement.

I've commented that Flash for mobiles isn't even a PUBLIC Beta. All we have are controlled demos, most of them a joke. We have Flash 10.1 for the desktop still in beta and I can attest that it's better than 10.0. I have stated stats and direct comparisons in other threads. Shown proof of it being better than the previous version. You have shown no proof.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

he might run a 'web shop' that actually cares about the quality and portability of the information. Of course he may not be able to charge the ridiculous fees for Flash 'animations' that have so endeared people to the magic that is 'Flash development'.

Actually coding in HTML5 is way more costly because there are no intuitive development tools, so Flash wins hands down on the time required to complete an application comparison.

That is what I'm looking for, useful and helpful information. Not useless rhetoric. Thank you very much. I'm just starting out with web development. I have Master Suite CS4. I like Dreamweaver a lot I use Flash. I am also working through PHP/MySQL and Javascript. I am trying to use CSS instead of building everything with tables. Thanks again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone

I wrote an HTML5 test page and I was immediately confronted with one very annoying problem with the canvas tag on iPhone. In my test, once I pinched zoomed to the point where my canvas filled the iPhone screen. I could not zoom out as the canvas tag itself for some reason is unresponsive to the pinch.

Dammit, why are the interesting comments always at the end of the thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groovetube

Sure thing, I tested some html5 basic animation stuff this morning, and while it worked in general on several browsers, it failed completely on the iphone.

"Basic animation" means different things to different people. The iPhone already (OS 3.1) has fairly strong HTML5 support, and actually started off that way - bear in mind that originally, iPhone apps meant basically dashboard widgets, which were I think the motivation for creating <canvas>.

So while your implementation may not work, there's a fair chance that your idea would. Keep in mind that the iPhone version of WebKit is, at best, frozen at the date of the latest major release, and in practice for QA reasons will be some months older than that. Apparently vanilla Safari 4.0.5 has WebKit 531; iPhone OS 3.1.2 has WebKit 528. Anything that was created or standardised or became popular after that point certainly won't be implemented.

Personally, the part I find most potentially useful about HTML5 is the offline storage API, and that most definitely does work on the iPhone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone

Flash is good for some things and bad for others. The problem is that 99% of Flash on the web is poorly written and used for the wrong reasons. Not Adobe's fault.

I agree that poorly-written Flash is a common problem (mostly, I suspect, because most Flash creators can program nothing more complex than common VBA), but I don't think you can say that's not at all Adobe's fault. They do provide creation software which, arcane though it is in some ways, presents a big friendly non-programmy interface by default, which encourages use by programming novices and hinders understanding of its underlying behaviour. They also could definitely interpret ActionScript code in a way which does JIT optimisation of basically shitty code, just as recent browsers do with Javascript: you may be using needless fixed-length loops, declaring variables like crazy and not implementing a jot of caching, but nowadays the browser will just silently sort that all out for you, to considerable performance improvement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenclaw

I'll have to disagree with this point of view, because it's elitist.

I was going to make a big long reply to this, about how pragmatic Objective-C is and how extremely reasonable web apps via Dashcode (or by hand!) are, but in short, yeah, agreed, complaints about opinions of Flash developers who wouldn't know program code if it slapped them in the face are elitist, although more from a "people who know how to do more than click on buttons" position than an "Objective-C programmers" one.

I think that would-be Flash programmers should be completely welcomed as HTML5+javascript programmers, but I don't think that gives them the right to complain that they can't pretend to be native application programmers in any context beyond functionality that's available to them. On that note, I do firmly think that Apple should allow "web apps" on the App Store.

"No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web."

Adobe is correct. No one should be the end all and be all of how we create etc.

Which is why I'm so happy that Apple is promoting HTML5. Because it is raising awareness and showing folks like myself that there are other tools out there.

So now I am not stuck with using Flash etc because 'what else can i use'. I can choose to use Flash, or make an app, or use HTML5 or whatever depending on what works best for the audience I want to create for. I can choose whether a particular group is worth the time and money to give them a perfect experience or just skip them cause it's not worth it

look at CBS for example. They chose to convert their site to HTML5. Because they want to reach all computer and mobile users. And it was deemed more cost effective than making a Flash heavy website and optimized apps for every mobile OS.

Again, Adobe is the only one killing Flash because they thought nothing could topple their monopoly position.

I've commented that Flash for mobiles isn't even a PUBLIC Beta. All we have are controlled demos, most of them a joke. We have Flash 10.1 for the desktop still in beta and I can attest that it's better than 10.0. I have stated stats and direct comparisons in other threads. Shown proof of it being better than the previous version. You have shown no proof.

do you always brow beat people for proof of an unreleased product? Show proof that the next iphone will so much better than the next droid. Show proof that ipad 2.0 won't be a flat bust.

You know damn well there is no such thing, as "proof' in an unreleased product, regardless of who it is. The truth is, and it's been told to you many times, there are indications that this player will be a good player. That's all we have right now, so you're just going to have to wait.

In the same vein, so far all we have are indications of the completed spec. There's no guarantees it will be fully supported by all browsers without any hiccups, certainly, if history is any indication.

do you always brow beat people for proof of an unreleased product? Show proof that the next iphone will so much better than the next droid. Show proof that ipad 2.0 won't be a flat bust.

You know damn well there is no such thing, as "proof' in an unreleased product, regardless of who it is. The truth is, and it's been told to you many times, there are indications that this player will be a good player. That's all we have right now, so you're just going to have to wait.

In the same vein, so far all we have are indications of the completed spec. There's no guarantees it will be fully supported by all browsers without any hiccups, certainly, if history is any indication.

The mewling and shrieking for proof is just stupid.

i think your choice of words throughout this and other threads disqualify you from claiming to want a reasonable discussion.